If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

Major conspiracy theories such as a faked Moon landing cannot be true or they would have been exposed within a few years a scientist has concluded.

Dr David Grimes, an Oxford University physicist, worked out a mathematical formula to calculate the chances of a plot being leaked by a whistle-blower or accidentally uncovered.

He was able to show that the more people involved in a conspiracy, the shorter its lifespan is likely to be.

For a plot to last five years, the maximum number of plotters turned out to be 2,521. To keep a scheme undetected for more than a decade, fewer than 1,000 people could be involved, while a century-long deception had to include fewer than 125 collaborators.

Since Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the Moon in 1969, conspiracy theorists have proposed that the landing was faked. They point to photographs showing the American flag blowing in the breeze, despite there being no atmosphere and the fact the astronauts' shadows do not match the lunar module light source.

But applying Dr Grimes' formula to the Moon landings, which would have involved an estimated 411,000 people who worked at Nasa, any hoax would have been found out in three years and eight months.

"It is common to dismiss conspiracy theories and their proponents out of hand but I wanted to take the opposite approach, to see how these conspiracies might be possible," said Dr Grimes. "To do that, I looked at the vital requirement for a viable conspiracy - secrecy." Dr Grimes's conspiracy equation factored in conspirator numbers, length of time, and even the effects of conspirators dying, whether of old age or non-natural causes.

Also required was a realistic estimation of any one individual disclosing a conspiracy. This was based on three genuine conspiracies, including the United States' National Security Agency Prism spying programme revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Dr Grimes, whose research appears in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE, said his work was inspired by the numerous communications he receives from people who believe in science-related conspiracies.

"A number of conspiracy theories revolve around science," he said. "While believing the Moon landings were faked may not be harmful, believing misinformation about vaccines can be fatal. Not everyone who believes in a conspiracy is unreasonable or unthinking. I hope that by showing how eye-wateringly unlikely some alleged conspiracies are, some people will reconsider their anti-science beliefs.

"If we are to address the multitudinous difficulties facing us as a species, from climate change to geopolitics, then we need to embrace reality over ideologically motivated fictions. To this end, we need to better understand how and why some ideas are entrenched and persistent among certain groups despite the evidence, and how we might counteract this."

Four famous conspiracy theories and the length of time it would take before their secrets leaked out into the public domain:
Moon-landing hoax

Many people still believe that Nasa faked its Apollo missions, and has never landed a man on the Moon.

However, Nasa had 411,000 employees at the time of the Moon landing and one of them should have blown the whistle within three years and eight months.

Cancer cure cover-up

It has been claimed that big pharmaceutical companies are hiding a cure for cancer to maintain profits for chemotherapy drugs.

But if everyone from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Merck and Co, and Johnson and Johnson, to GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca were involved it would amount to 714,000 people and the story would get out within three years and three months.

Climate change fraud

If man-made climate change was a myth, a huge number of scientists, academics and policymakers would need to be involved in the cover up.

Including members of the American Geo-Physical Union, American Academy for Advancement of Science, European Physical Society, the Royal Society, and Nasa, as well as published climate scientists, 405,000 would have to keep quiet. That would be possible only for three years and nine months.

Unsafe vaccine conspiracy

If unsafe vaccines were being produced, a cabal of the Centre for Disease Control the World Health Organisation, and almost certainly pharmaceutical companies would be needed adding up to 736,000 people. Such a plot would crumble within three years and two months.

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

The guy's a bozo, Ross ...he's trying to mix real conspiracies and imagined conspiracies so that he can then cast doubt on all conspiracies (and conspiracy investigators).

Tell him to posit an opinion on the 9/11/2001 attacks .. then there may be a starting point to discuss the veracity of his claims on other topics.

Once again, given the volume of evidence of false flag intelligence operations against the masses in all areas of life (that have been uncovered in the internet era) ... one would have to be a blithering idiot or an obsequiious twit to not start with conspiracy as the default theory.

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

The guy's a bozo, Ross ...he's trying to mix real conspiracies and imagined conspiracies so that he can then cast doubt on all conspiracies (and conspiracy investigators).

Bozo or not...his assertion, as is mine, is that the secrecy component is the flaw in all major conspiracies.

That is not to say some conspiracies are not real...but Human beings are notorious, more likely than not, to speak up. Keeping secrets when 100's of people are involved has been countered by the compartmentalization argument, and while this is a real aspect in classified departments and non-disclosure agreements, we're still looking at lots of people required to keep their traps shut...Humans are absolutely crap at it. So the OP in this case is accurate if for no other reason than the proof that Humans cannot be trusted in keeping secrets...we simply cannot and I argue it's written in our DNA, albeit we fight against it when enough motivation is presented...but that is no insurance policy.

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi

The Manhattan Project and compartmentalization of information methods solve bozos who misapply mathematics.

As posted above...when enough motivation is presented...in this case 1935-1945, when patriotism and an ease of propaganda delivery, which could not be disseminated in those days due to a lack of ability to fact check, ignorance was at a whole other level...to what we see today

When Pearl harbour was bombed, a suspected FF event to patriotize public opinion, anyone working on such an important, secretive mission like the MP would have been easily persuaded to conform to secrecy due to the attack on PH...FF or not and the importance of WW2 and its enemies...and lets not forget the US was not the only lot working in secrecy for the war effort.

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

Originally Posted by Ross

As posted above...when enough motivation is presented...in this case 1935-1945, when patriotism and an ease of propaganda delivery, which could not be disseminated in those days due to a lack of ability to fact check, ignorance was at a whole other level...to what we see today

When Pearl harbour was bombed, a suspected FF event to patriotize public opinion, anyone working on such an important, secretive mission like the MP would have been easily persuaded to conform to secrecy due to the attack on PH...FF or not and the importance of WW2 and its enemies...and lets not forget the US was not the only lot working in secrecy for the war effort.

Using your example of the MP is flawed in this regard.

Think deeper, Ross. The conspirators use patriotism to compartmentalize. "You are either with us or with them" (as per Bush). But the issue is not the methods they use, so much as the success they achieve with those methods.

Conspiracies are real and ubiquitous. It is there in small scale in the home and house, only its called manipulation when spouses do it to each other. When more individuals are involved and groups form ... conspiracy is then a true and tried method used by certain groups as they seek power advantage over other groups. Conspiracy is a natural part of human organization.

If you accept that manipulation is a common feature in the average household, then you shouldn't have any problem accepting that conspiracy is a common feature in the bigger world. Me? I've long accepted that manipulation exists in all scales. It's just called different things in different scales. Conspiracy is just manipulation on a much larger scale than most of us are used to.

Perhaps that is why I see conspiracies everywhere ... because they are a natural part of human organization and are therefore easy to recognize.

Indeed, I really get curious (in a roll your eyes kinda way) ... when people claim that there is no conspiracy and no conspirators (pick a group of conspirators, any group of conspirators). I wonder just exactly what people are looking at when they claim there is no conspiracy. They might as well claim there is no human organization, for all human organization has some conspiracy built into it. The differences then are between acceptable conspiracies and unacceptable conspiracies. I don't waste too much time commenting on acceptable conspiracies. I just shrug my shoulders and accept them. But nuts to monkeys and bananas to squirrels if I let the toxic conspiracies set root on my watch. Not if I can help it.

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

If you accept that manipulation is a common feature in the average household, then you shouldn't have any problem accepting that conspiracy is a common feature in the bigger world.

No argument there...Manipulation and conspiratorial activities are as old as civilization.

I point to that original blueprint embedded deep into our DNA...survival. That one law, which spawned all others, let rise to all manner of behaviours in gaining an edge over others. That early necessary skill has been honed over time and morphed into a general accepted and expected behaviour. Guess that's why we've still got borders which extend into the oceans and above into the airspace while all attached to 'cultural' sovereignties...

So, yes, conspiracies exist no question. But not all conspiracies are truth. The apollo missions are one that mathematically is impossible to keep secret aside from the evidence that the Moon missions were real...we've hashed that one out hard so no need to continue it. We agree to disagree on that one.

I also know that conspiracies are used as a tool against the masses...a social engineered formula...and even more so today with the advent of available information across the web allowing everyday numbnuts to spread the nonsense and confusion. Add into that the more 'out-there' theories, which are stated as fact, Flat Earth for example, Hollow Earth, reptilians, the Nibiru annunaki meme, Chemtrails for the purpose of poisoning and dumbing down the masses and a whole bunch of others.

I tend to separate the manipulative conspiracies from the others, those that take a life of their own due to everyday idiots spreading it like a virus. 'Going viral' is a new term aligned directly with the access of media portals...idiots then do the rest and spread the virus...the truth is not the purpose in these cases.

I guess I'm a little opposite to you in that regard...

Perhaps that is why I see conspiracies everywhere ... because they are a natural part of human organization and are therefore easy to recognize.

I tend to look at a separation of conspiracies based on their own merit while understanding many are contrived and require an objective approach...because Humans are damn good at making shjt up and even better at spreading the shjt...

The easiest if not the best example to judge the respective integrity of your approach and mine is the (alleged) Moon Landings. Here, I think we can both agree. We've already discussed that one at length and are waiting for the cow to jump over the Moon before returning to the barn, in a manner of speaking. I think the facts - taken together - ONLY support a concussion of hoax perpetrated by the American regime of the day in a poker bluff as part and parcel of a contrived space race between two Frankenstein monster nations built in the same lab by the same nutjob Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant Igor, and set against each other like Rock'em Sock'em robots to create two huge mutually acrimonious fan bases. Divide and conquer, the strategy of empires. Mr. Rothschild meet Miss Empire.

The US and the USSR, both Rothschild nations, together pumped up the contrived space race. One of them wins, the other loses, at least that's the expected race result. But this is not a sprint. It's a marathon. And the winner is not determined in the first 100 meters. And we have one more exceptional circumstance, both runners are on shekel-bought PEDs. So both are disqualified after the urine results are analyzed. Of course, the only other runner in the space race, Truth, is still running, so we'll have to wait just a little bit longer before the marathon ends before awarding the gold medal to Truth.

I just happened to call the race early, that's all. The untainted Truth is this: geopolitics gave birth to perhaps the largest bluff ever visited on mankind. One large bluff by man (Nixon??) ... one small achievement for mankind (so small that it belongs in the null set).

Back to the general topic of conspiracies, Ross ... conspiracies exist in virtually all human endeavors. All it requires is two human units to agree to plot against other human units in the trivial case. Raising the scale to such macro levels where national politics and geopolitics are being considered, conspiracy is the default operational method.

So the question to ask is not whether a conspiracy exists, but to assume that conspiracy exists and then try and discover the exact shape of this conspiracy. Of course, being humans on the outside looking in, we will never find the exact shape, only an approximate shape (in the best human accuracy).

So right away your approach is flawed because it doesn't assume conspiracy as a rule, but sees it as an exception.

The task of truthseekers then is not to determine if a conspiracy exists or not, the smoke already tells us there's a fire ... but to determine what is being burned. End of task.

In this scenario, you'll have all kinds of fake claims being made. To confuse the truth and with no other purpose. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the people on these sundry alternative media forums post only to disrupt the investigation of the truth. And they'll pump up fabricated theories without thinking twice about it. In some cases, the chaff overwhelms the wheat and it is hard to discern the conspiracy. In many cases,an approximate shape of the conspiracy appears that cannot be refuted. In virtually all cases, some shape appears. And some shape appears because there's smoke to begin with, else there wouldn't be an event to discuss. That is the rule of conspiracy.

The exceptions are the fabricated events, like the Flat Earth theory. We can recognize the fabricated stuff almost immediately. But even the Flat Earth theory belongs in a conspiracy, e.g. the conspiracy to pollute the truths with fabricated stuff.

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi

So right away your approach is flawed because it doesn't assume conspiracy as a rule, but sees it as an exception.

I said this

I tend to separate the manipulative conspiracies from the others, those that take a life of their own due to everyday idiots spreading it like a virus. 'Going viral' is a new term aligned directly with the access of media portals...idiots then do the rest and spread the virus...the truth is not the purpose in these cases.

Other conspiracies, I'll look at whether any of the offered evidence stacks up...I certainly don't take 'witness testimony' or deduced evidence from an internet identity as worthy.

Sandy hook is a good example where the mathematics used in the OP is accurate.

20 kids and 7 adults killed.

Thats 20, 7-8 year olds with parents. We now have around 60 identities. Add to that the 7 adults. 6 teachers and the killers mother all with identities and traceable families.

So we have around 80-100 people just there. Then add in the survivours of six teachers who collectively hid almost 40 kids...all with identities and parents. All the first responders, second responders and subsequent additional responders.

We then had the viral nonsense of conspiracy 'crisis' actors, who were the fictitious parents and friends of all above. We had emergency service people, police and others, all actors...the entire thing was staged, no dead people all identities made up using easily debunked disinformation.

Now this will sound harsh but I believe it's founded.

It was an absolute disaster in terms of those who claimed to believe this conspiracy...you, Zook, using your method as written above, fell heavily into this nonsense based on your view that it must of been a FF conspiracy, and worse, believing the crap you garnered off the internet, fuelling this conspiracy with zero empathy for those who lost loved ones...I told you then, get off from behind the keyboard and go visit Ground zero and speak to the survivors, hospital staff, responders...

But alas, you didn't...time, costs etc is a justified reason not to, I get that...but remaining a supporter of this believed FF is verging on criminal...certainly a complicitor in terms of making 'public' judgements from the comfort of home while there's 100's of deeply affected peoples whose lives have changed forever.

Truth is often your go-to catch phrase, as is mine...but you'll not see me supporting any ole conspiracy based on it being the 'default setting' as you put it...because that's not being objective nor is it allowing for fact checking truth...I'd hate that sort of bias in a group of jury members...wouldn't you? because that's how the survivors and all involved will feel after reading across social media, mainstream and the alt scene, that their kids don't exist, their loved ones don't matter because it was all a staged hoax...damn hurtful I reckon.

This is why I said

'Going viral' is a new term aligned directly with the access of media portals...idiots then do the rest and spread the virus...the truth is not the purpose in these cases. I tend to look at a separation of conspiracies based on their own merit while understanding many are contrived and require an objective approach...because Humans are damn good at making shjt up and even better at spreading the shjt...

Re: Conspiracy theories: The odds against are astronomical.

Other conspiracies, I'll look at whether any of the offered evidence stacks up...I certainly don't take 'witness testimony' or deduced evidence from an internet identity as worthy.

You certainly don't look at the forensic and circumstantial evidence either, Ross.

For if you did, you wouldn't arrive at the nonsensical conclusion that Sandy Hook was as advertised in the mainstream media. The preponderance of forensic anomalies is so overwhelming that it turns rational sense upside down to conclude anything other than that Sandy Hook was a gun grabbing state-staged event. If innocents do indeed get killed in such events, their deaths had been calculated in as collateral damage by the monstrous beings that plan said events. The Oklahoma City bombings in 1995, where a nursery school inside the federal Murrah Building was a calculated soft target zone occurred long before so-called "idiots" on the internet had a chance to weigh in with their "idiot" assertions about crisis actors and what not. The preponderance of forensic evidence pointed to a false flag in that case as well.

Killing children hits at the core of human feeling. The psychopaths who order mayhem as part of a false flag operation understand that protecting children is paramount in any species, including humans. All they are interested in - as part of their tribal agenda - is to make sure their tribe survives on a planet that has so many bigger tribes on it. This is their primary motivation. The disturbing notion of killing a few children here and there to advance their larger agenda is not going to deter them. Gun control is a key objective for the tribe-dominated capstone of the power pyramid. Guns in the hands of the goyim masses at the base of this pyramid is a threat to their agenda.

Killing children is taboo shifted to another gear, e.g. 6th Commandment of the Bible ("thou shall not kill"). If it can be arranged that guns in the hands of the masses results in random mayhem resulting in the deaths of many children, then the tribal elites have found a potent weapon to wage against the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Your appeal for the victims of Sandy Hook is not a rational study. It's an emotional vent. Forensic science has no room for emotional vents. You better bring a cold disposition when you study the facts, else you'll get the science all wrong. The science points to and locks in Sandy Hook as a false flag event. And it doesn't require crisis actors as data points. Those who point to weak evidence (such as crisis actors) do so at the expense of the strong evidence which is also available. Weak evidence can contribute to the preponderance but it cannot stand on its own. OTOH, strong evidence can stand on its own.

You've done this on more than one occasion, Ross. You've chased weak evidence time and again on other false flag operations as well, even after I've pointed you to the strong evidence. The (apparent) Moon Landings come to mind. Which is why I believe you are in a cognitive dissonant state of mind.

Back to Sandy Hook. Were children killed? I cannot answer that. I'd need more data points. Sometimes children are killed for real. Other times, they are asked to participate in school drills, etc. which compartmentalizes them in a semi-permanent virtual reality. I did not study the deaths of children in the Sandy Hook case all that closely because the deaths themselves are incidental to the pursuit of the perpetrator. If children are really dead, then we still wouldn't know whether Adam Lanza or the state-run death squads pulled the trigger. But if children are only virtually dead, even if only one child was virtually dead, then that would necessarily finger a state-run operation. That said, studying the number and reality of child deaths at Sandy Hook is not readily available to most outsiders, including you and I. By contrast, other forensic evidence is indeed available to us outsiders. And the preponderance is undeniable in regards to this other forensic evidence. I've already posted about the Sandy Hook anomalies here, and at United People. Am not about to rehash those arguments again.

Sandy hook is a good example where the mathematics used in the OP is accurate.

20 kids and 7 adults killed.

Thats 20, 7-8 year olds with parents. We now have around 60 identities. Add to that the 7 adults. 6 teachers and the killers mother all with identities and traceable families.

So we have around 80-100 people just there. Then add in the survivours of six teachers who collectively hid almost 40 kids...all with identities and parents. All the first responders, second responders and subsequent additional responders.

We then had the viral nonsense of conspiracy 'crisis' actors, who were the fictitious parents and friends of all above. We had emergency service people, police and others, all actors...the entire thing was staged, no dead people all identities made up using easily debunked disinformation.

Everything above is a parroting of conjecture offered by the mainstream media. There is no science in your argument, Ross. I can offer rebuttals if there are actual data points to prove or disprove.

Now this will sound harsh but I believe it's founded.

It was an absolute disaster in terms of those who claimed to believe this conspiracy...you, Zook, using your method as written above, fell heavily into this nonsense based on your view that it must of been a FF conspiracy, and worse, believing the crap you garnered off the internet, fuelling this conspiracy with zero empathy for those who lost loved ones...I told you then, get off from behind the keyboard and go visit Ground zero and speak to the survivors, hospital staff, responders...

But alas, you didn't...time, costs etc is a justified reason not to, I get that...but remaining a supporter of this believed FF is verging on criminal...certainly a complicitor in terms of making 'public' judgements from the comfort of home while there's 100's of deeply affected peoples whose lives have changed forever.

The above is an argument by fallacy of appeal to emotions and authority. I do not have to visit Auschwitz to know that once it was a concentration camp. Or that it once had a plaque that put the number of lost lives at somewhere around 4 million ... and now it has a more recent plaque that brings down that number to somewhere around 1.5 million.

I don't have to visit NASA and talk to witnesses to expose the Moon Landings as an unimitigated hoax. There's one clip, alone, to which you still haven't provided a rational explanation for, that basically seals the deal on the rest of the preponderance of anomalies, e.g. where Armstrong claims to be some 130,000 miles out when he was in fact in low Earth orbit.

Now, I'm not going to accuse you of being complicit by design in all this tribal legerdemain. But you're definitely complicit by the virtues and vices of cognitive dissonance. Heck, the vast majority of my relatives, friends, and acquaintance are exactly as you are ... in their own confabulated realities. It allows them to function. So I leave them be else I wouldn't have much communication with any human units at all. Fortunately, there are a few out there that still have cognitive resonance about them. And they give me hope for humanity yet in this dark beginning to the new century. We'll have to leave it at that.

Truth is often your go-to catch phrase, as is mine...but you'll not see me supporting any ole conspiracy based on it being the 'default setting' as you put it...because that's not being objective nor is it allowing for fact checking truth...I'd hate that sort of bias in a group of jury members...wouldn't you? because that's how the survivors and all involved will feel after reading across social media, mainstream and the alt scene, that their kids don't exist, their loved ones don't matter because it was all a staged hoax...damn hurtful I reckon.

This is why I said

Like you, Ross, I miss Fred very much. Much more than you'll ever know for he truly had a gift for looking at facts squarely in the eye. Even if he held the wrong fact from time to time, he had no aversion to looking at upgrading his database. Which is why you could have a proper scientific debate on just about anything with him. Fred was also an emotional person. Substantial wits, invariably are. But he knew how to separate emotions and thoughts.

Even if you oppose my arguments against gun control (and in favor of the Second Amendment), at least go back and read his. They are well thought out.